Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Bill

Mr. D. Wade: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition, as follows:
The honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. A humble Petition of the undersigned showeth that the propositions contained in the Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Bill will directly interfere with the individual freedom of Her Majesty's liege and loyal subjects the undersigned.
The Petition then continues by declaring that owners of vehicles affected by the Bill will be compelled to insure persons unnamed for an unlimited amount of compensation.
The object of the Petition, Mr. Speaker, is to point out that the cost of such insurance will be too onerous a burden on the owners of such vehicles, particularly two-wheeled vehicles, and will cause hardship to those who cannot afford a more expensive means of transport, and it concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that you will reject the Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Bill in its entirety. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendment be now considered.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to have an explanation of what the Lords Amendment is designed to do?

Mr. Speaker: We might, if the House decides that it shall be now considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(RAISING LIMIT ON SHARE OF ANY ONE MEMBER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 12, leave out "minor amendments and".

11.8 a.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment which does not in any way alter the purpose or the principle of the Bill. It was proposed on the advice of Parliamentary counsel and was moved by the Government in another place.

Mr. John Wells: Every hon. Member who has an interest in horticulture will welcome the Bill, but does it not go slightly further than being a mere drafting Amendment? Does it not alter the sense of the Bill slightly? Could we not have some further explanation than merely saying that it is a drafting Amendment? We can see that it is a drafting Amendment, but we would not like this excellent Bill to be substantially altered without some assurance.

Mr. Rankin: In this matter, of course, I am subject to the guidance of the expert, and my assurance is as I have stated it, that in no way is the purpose or the principle of the Bill altered. As a mere Member of this House, I dare not dispute something which has already been accepted by the Government on the advice of their counsel.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely this is a case in which we want the help of an umpire. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is supporting the Bill, thinks that this is the mere technical alteration of a word which does not affect the content of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), who, clearly, has given much study to this subject and who talks from his heart when he says that horticulture is involved, thinks that the purpose of the Bill might be affected.
The umpire can be only the Government. The hon. Member for Govan says that the Amendment makes no difference and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone says that there could be a difference. Both sides of the House ought to be satisfied whether the Amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill, or whether there could be an ominous meaning behind it which would cause dissatisfaction among people in horticulture. Which is right?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) is entirely right. The Amendment does not change the purpose of the Clause in any way. The form of drafting originally chosen might lead someone to suppose that the Amendment in the Schedule could be more than consequential. In fact, none of the Amendments is more than consequential. I hope that the House will therefore agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th May], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question again proposed.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is it possible for an hon. Member who has already addressed the House on this Question to address it a second time? There are one or two points which I should like to raise again.

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member had his innings last time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SMALL ESTATES (REPRESENTATION) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move, That, the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a modest Bill, as befits its position in the Ballot at No. 17. It is designed to do a certain amount of good without incurring the opposition of any substantial quarter of the House. Hon. Members who have read it will realise that its object is to increase the possibility of getting grants of representation from Customs officers rather than having to go to solicitors in such cases. The reference is to Customs officers in England and to the equivalent in Scotland, Customs officers and sheriff clerks.
The present limit on the value of an estate which can be so taken to a Customs officer is £500 gross value, and it is proposed in the Bill that this sum should be altered to £1,000 net value and £3,000 gross value. The advantage which I hope will flow to the public from a change in the law is that it will be cheaper and easier to obtain representation in all these small estates without having to go through legal formalities of any complication.
In England there are only 34 probate registers, but in addition there are 273 Customs offices. In most of the industrial towns and districts served by market towns there is a Customs officer, and these gentlemen are able to deal with some estates. The Bill would enable them to deal with more. In Scotland it will add a further 28 Customs offices to those already entitled to deal with these matters, and that will be of convenience in Scotland.
The House may inquire why this limit of £1,000 net value has been proposed. The amount of £500 gross was fixed in 1894, and the House will agree that £500 gross in 1894 is a very much larger sum than £1,000 net today. That is one


reason for altering the lower limit. But we also propose a higher limit of £3,000 gross on the total value of the estate. The reason for that is, in the first place, that since 1954 no Estate Duty has been chargeable on estates of that size, and that led to a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen putting down Amendments to the Finance Bill in 1956, 1957 and 1958 with the object of altering the value of estates in the way in which this Bill tries to alter them—those which can be taken to Customs officers. Those Amendments were put down by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). The Amendments have always been found to be out of order because the proposal before the House on the Finance Bill was that there should be no duty at all.
Secondly, it is said that if the limit of £3,000 gross were raised much higher we should at once move into the sphere of estates which are very complicated. While they would be less than £1,000 net, the gross value would need to be calculated by a series of Estate Duty calculations which might possibly be beyond the capacity or the time available of the Customs officers, and it would require legal advice to settle them.
There might be a case for raising the gross value even higher, but this figure has been chosen as one on which the greatest number of people would agree. Those who have been asked include hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those bodies or people who have expressed themselves satisfied with the financial provisions include the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, whose opinion has been asked as to what the appropriate level should be. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has been consulted. I think that this is a reasonable limit and a reasonable object to be achieved by the Bill.
Apart from convenience, the Bill to some extent will be financially in the interests of the public. The charge for proving a will is rather arbitrary at the moment. If the will is below £500 gross the charge is 15s. flat rate. If it is more

than £500 gross, then although the net estate may amount to very little and sometimes even to nothing, the charge is £4, whatever the net value. It is proposed in the Bill that the charges shall be on a sliding scale and therefore appropriate to the size of the estate, and that should be of benefit to members of the public who are able to take advantage of this procedure.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is the sliding scale based on the net value or the gross value?

Mr. Kershaw: On the net value to get rid of the difficulty about gross values. An estate might have a gross value of more than £500 and attract a fee of £4 but have no net value. Nothing might remain.
A body of people who might regard the Bill with something less than affecttion are the solicitors, who will lose a certain amount of business in this way. The higher we put the gross value the more business solicitors will lose. We must bear that in mind. It is said that under the proposed limits there might be about 14,000 cases a year in England and Wales. I have not the comparable figures for Scotland, but no doubt they will be proportionately the same, although much fewer numerically.
I am informed that there are—and it seems a terrible thing—19,000 solicitors in this country. The average cost of a case of this sort—14,000 a year may well fall to be considered after the Bill is passed—is about £2. Therefore, if the Bill is passed, arithmetically speaking, each solicitor may find himself £2 10s. a year less rich than he might otherwise have been.
The Law Society has, therefore, expressed a view about this matter. It has generously said that it has no objection to the Bill being passed with the limits suggested. However, it has added a proviso that it hopes that the custom will not grow up of those who wish to prove wills going to Customs officers surrounded by unqualified advisers—those which the Society describes as "touting for work"—acting as unofficial and unpaid "solicitors" in place of qualified solicitors.
I can hardly believe that this is a very great danger or that a stout living is to be obtained by accompanying a person


to the Customs office and undertaking to put forward his or her case concerning a will. However, the objection is noted, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will bear it in mind when considering any regulations which may have to be made as a consequence of the Bill. A financial saving will also result from going to a nearby Customs office instead of having to travel to the county town or to the High Court in London or some other city. I therefore hope that the House will agree that the Bill is likely to be of financial benefit to the public also.
Lastly, the House will notice that in the Clause 3 (5), which was amended In Committee, the Government of Northern Ireland is mentioned. It is necessary to do this, since these are reserve powers which affect the status of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, the Clause was amended in Committee because, after reading the Bill, the Northern Ireland Government decided that they might at some future date wish to take advantage of the provisions contained in it, although at the moment they do not wish to do so. They therefore asked that the Clause should be amended in such a way that, without further trouble, they could adhere, so to speak, to the Bill in future if they desired.
I hope that the House will pass the Bill.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I think that the Bill illustrates one of the fundamental difficulties of introducing legislation without it having ample consideration on Second Reading. I believe that this Bill received a Second Reading on the nod. It is a pity that it was not given some consideration on Second Reading. I do not like Bills going through without some consideration being given to them by the House. I therefore much regret that this one was not given some thought by the House before going to Standing Committee.
The Bill was in Standing Committee for a very short time. Consideration of it started at 10.32 a.m. on 29th March and by about 10.45 it had gone through the Committee stage. If I had been a member of the Standing Committee, I

should have made some constructive suggestions for improving the Bill. It was my intention to table Amendments for the Report stage, but, unfortunately, because of my heavy Parliamentary duties during the last week or two, I made a mistake about the date of it. I thought that the Report stage would be today, but, on inquiry in the Public Bill Office yesterday, I regret that I was informed that it had taken place. I am therefore only able to make the remarks that I wished to make about the Bill on Third Reading.
I do not agree with the purpose behind the Bill. I do not think that it goes far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) referred to the fall in the value of money since 1894, when the figure of £500 was fixed. I do not think that anyone would say that the £1,000 to which estates are limited by the Bill is in any way equivalent to the £500 of 1894. I should have liked to suggest—perhaps my hon. Friend will consider my remarks to see whether some Amendments may be introduced in another place—that we should have made the limits in the Bill comparable—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has recited his misfortune and mistake about the date of the Report stage, but I am afraid that not even those misfortunes bring discussion of Amendments which might be made to the Bill within order on Third Reading.

Mr. Williams: I take the point, Mr. Speaker, and tender my apologies to you. While I am not prepared to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because I think that it gives a certain amount of benefit to people with small estates, I regret that it has been so finely drawn. I should have liked to see the Bill extended to include estates which do not attract death duty at all. However, I must not go outside the limits of the Bill, since this is a Third Reading debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be fortunate in the Bill receiving the assent of the House, and that we shall see further legislation of this kind in years to come which extends the limit so that others may have the benefits which my hon. Friend seeks to give to people with small estates.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) on having chosen this subject for his Bill and having got the Bill to this stage. I am sure that, in general, the Bill will be of material benefit to the public as a whole, because there is, on average, at any rate in England and Wales, less than one probate registry per county. I am not able to talk about the average number in Scotland, because I do not know the total number of Scottish counties. The Bill will enable an average of about seven Customs and Excise offices within each county to be available to the public. That must be of benefit especially to people related to impecunious deceased persons or to persons who have died without large estates and who do not wish to be put to the trouble and expense of travelling substantial distances, which they often have to do, in order to reach a probate registry.
The Bill will also provide them with another benefit. It will greatly ease the frequent situation of deceased persons who had no assets except a policy of insurance on a motor car in the driving of which he was killed and caused substantial injury to other people whose remedy depends, in the first place, on administration being taken out in respect of the estate, because they cannot obtain the benefit of the policy of insurance unless there is an administrator. Thereafter, the action is taken charge of by the insurance company, which ought to be liable in any event. The Bill will help to persuade relatives to undertake the simple task of going to the local Customs and Excise office in order to take out administration or probate, if necessary, in such cases which are not infrequent in the experience of those who have to deal with litigation concerning motor cars.
If there is a policy of insurance for damage which has taken place, I presume that that would be covered, but the Customs and Excise officer would be qualified to decide whether the estate was within his jurisdiction in a case such as the one about which I once heard, where the only asset of the estate was a policy of insurance in respect of the deceased's fifth and last fraudulent fire.
I would have suggested to my hon. Friend that the limits of £1,000 for the net estate and £3,000 for the gross estate are extremely narrow, not only in view of the fall in the value of money, but because of a number of other factors which have to be taken into consideration when contemplating these figures. First, under intestate distribution, since 1954, when a deceased person leaves a spouse and any number of other relatives, the spouse takes the whole of the personal chattels and the whole of the first £5,000. Therefore, a net estate of £1,000 would go to any such spouse in any event and substantially greater figures would also go to such spouse. Furthermore, since 1954, no Estate Duty is payable on estates of under £3,000 net. Therefore, from that viewpoint also, the Bill seems to be drawn very narrowly.
The other factor which has to be taken into account is the change in the definition of "gross estate" which provides that included in the gross estate shall be the total value of any freehold property, irrespective of whether it is mortgaged. Normally, one would include in the gross estate only the equity of redemption or the actual interest in the property that the deceased person has because the rest of the interest in the freehold property belongs to the building society. Nowadays, however, when so many people buy their houses on mortgage, to include the whole of the value of that property in the gross estate will put many estates outside the limit of £3,000, even though in reality it is quite a small estate with a very small equity of redemption in the freehold property.
I should not have thought that there was any great risk either to solicitors or of touting in any extension of the figures. As I understand it, a person who wants to take out probate or administration of a small estate such as this is perfectly entitled still to see a solicitor and, I would suppose, he would be well advised to do so. The solicitor can do all the paper work and charge a fee for it. He can advise the person to whom the documents should be taken and they will then be in proper order.
The figure of 14,000 cases a year which the Bill affects is a very small number. So far as the Customs and Excise officers are concerned, it is an average of fifty per Customs office, or one per week for each of the Customs offices throughout


the country. On the basis of 19,000 solicitors, it works out at an average of three-quarters of a case per year per solicitor.
I suppose that a substantial number of those 14,000 cases will still, in any event, be dealt with by solicitors even though the probate or administration is actually granted ultimately to the Customs and Excise officers. Therefore, on balance, I am inclined to support the Bill, although I very much regret that the limits of estate are placed at such a low level.

11.35 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) has voiced the reaction of many people that the limits could have been placed higher. At first sight, it looks as though the figure in the Bill is not the right one. There is, however, another side which we as Members of Parliament should consider.
Had the figure been put any higher, it could well have been that the number of cases which, as a result, would have been taken to the Customs and Excise officers or to the sheriff clerks would have been so many more that those people would have applied for an increase in staff at a time when we do not want the administrative staffs throughout the country to be increased.
There is just that risk that had the figure been much higher, we should have transferred to civil servants work that is at present done by the private solicitor and which is done without any extra charge being imposed upon the administrative costs of the country.
I have a figure which bears some relation to that. I understand that if cases within the proposed limits are handled in similar proportions in future to what has been done in the past, it could be assumed that 14,000 cases now dealt with by solicitors would be transferred to the Customs officer or to the sheriff clerk. We know that by dividing the figure by 19,000, we arrive at an average of three-quarters of a case, and this appears to be very light indeed. If, however, the 14,000 extra cases were to be channelled through Government offices, those of us who have had experience in Government Departments know that

prima facie they would consider that a very good case for getting extra staff.
Therefore, whilst I do not disagree completely with my hon. and learned Friend that, in view of present-day money values, the figure seems rather low and while we are altering the limit from £500 to £1,000 we could have taken into account that little bit of extra inflation which, I have no doubt, will take place over the next few years, the figures cannot be disregarded when one considers the additional cases that might be channelled through the Customs and Excise officers.
My reason for intervening is based upon the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), not his words about his Parliamentary duties having been so heavy that he could not carry out the task that he ought to have done. If my hon. Friend finds it so heavy, he should drink Guinness. That helps one to pick up in all sorts of ways. Had he taken Guinness instead of gin or milk, then he could have carried his Parliamentary weight more easily.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is a little away from the Third Reading of the Small Estates (Representation) Bill.

Sir H. Nicholls: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. That was a little aside which, I hope, will help my hon. Friend in future and, I am sure, explains why he might not have done something he should have done.
My hon. Friend made a substantial point concerning the absence of security, certainly on a question of this sort when dealing with people who do not have legal advice at their elbow. Big estates generally have regular communication with their lawyers and they do not need to be told of amendments in the law of this nature in the same way as the smaller estates. The smaller estates rely upon people like the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the snippets they read in the newspapers. When amendments of this nature are made, a Second Reading debate, with its full explanation of the principle, is essential. It is a pity that we did not have it.
Therefore, while keeping, I hope, within the rules of order, I reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), because the more concise


and clear that we can make the alterations now, when they are on the record, the more assistance we will be giving to many thousands of people who have to deal with small estates.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable members of the public in England and Wales to obtain the assistance of Customs officers, and in Scotland of sheriff clerks, in seeking grants of representation where the net estate is less than £1,000. I do not, however, think that it was understood previously by many people that estates even of £500 could be dealt with in this way. By the Bill, the existing limit of £500 becomes £1,000.
In England and Wales, there are only 34 probate registries, including Somerset House, from which grants may be obtained, but under the procedure instituted by Section 33 of the Revenue Act, 1881, extended by Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1894, applicants for grants of representation to small estates may apply now instead to some 273 Customs officers. The increase from 34 to 273 means wider scope for getting assistance at these troublesome times. However one looks at it, it is an improvement that people who need assistance will be able to get it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Now that the hon. Gentleman has secured a measure of approval from the House to making a Second Reading speech because there was no Second Reading, and not making a Third Reading speech because there is a Third Reading, could he go further and give some information, which some of us would like to have, on how many of these cases have gone through Customs officers out of how many applications that could have been made in any relevant year in the recent past?

Sir H. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my opening words, as he usually does.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman was talking about Guinness.

Sir H. Nicholls: They were not my opening words, but the second in line. My opening words dealt with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and I have given that proportion.

If the hon. Gentleman will work it out, perhaps it will give him the answer he wants. Now that the figure has gone up from £500 to £1,000, if the proportion of people making use of this outside service—the existing 34 offices, and, in future, 273—remains the same, it will mean that 14,000 cases now dealt with privately will be dealt with by Customs officers. I am quite certain that if the hon. Gentleman gets out his slide rule, he will be able to find what the figure would have been if the limit had remained at £500.

Mr. Hale: I do not need a slide rule to do that. I take it that the hon. Gentleman means 34/273rds of 14,000, which is roughly 2,000, which is not a great deal of use to be made of a Statute passed by Parliament to provide facilities.

Sir H. Nicholls: I am not accepting the figure given by the hon. Gentleman, who thinks while on his feet. That is his reputation here. When working out figures as complex as this, it may be that his figures are right. On the other hand, they may be wrong. The figure I have given is fairly low. If the proportion remains the same, it seems to me that this alteration will mean that about 14,000 people who previously had to get this matter settled through private solicitors, not all of them as able as the hon. Gentleman, will be able to get it done for them.

Mr. Hale: The figure is 1,840.

Sir H. Nicholls: The other point that I wanted to make is that Northern Ireland is contracting out of the Bill. People in Northern Ireland do not wish the law on this subject to be amended, and they are still relying upon the Acts of 1881 and 1894, which will apply there by virtue of Clause 3 (5). I think that that is the position and it is as well that it should be so—is my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud dissenting from what I am saying?

Mr. Kershaw: Not at all.

Sir H. Nicholls: The fact that Northern Ireland does not come into this ought to be known, because I had not got that point clear before I read the Bill with great care, as I did yesterday. The proposed financial limit of £1,000 may not be high, taking into account the fall


in the value of money, but it is a move in the right direction, and if it had been placed much higher, though it is difficult to know what the correct figure might have been, it could have been that we were pushing on the Customs and Excise officers a greater volume of work than their present staff could cope with, bearing in mind their already onerous duties.
With that addendum to the speech of my hon. Friend, I wish to support him in what I think is certainly a move in the right direction. Although we cannot be absolutely certain that the figure is absolutely correct, it is certainly better that it should be £1,000 rather than £500. I hope that this is a case of Parliament making the task of people administering small estates much easier than it has been in the past. This is a big problem for families to handle, and I think that this modest alteration in the figures will be generally welcomed. I hope that it can be done without the Customs and Excise Department and the Sheriff Officers having to ask for extra staff.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I do not intend following my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) over the whole field, but I want to say a word of regret at one phrase he used when he linked the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to "snippets in the newspapers." The Citizens' Advice Bureaux do excellent work in advising people on all the problems of life, and the executors of small estates about their problems, whereas "snippets in the newspapers," by and large, lead us astray.
I wish to make only two small points. There is no Money Resolution to the Bill. A number of the smaller Customs offices are open only for a very limited number of days, and, if the volume of work increases, they will undoubtedly have to be open more frequently. Various hon. Members have expressed concern lest the costs should go up in Customs offices, and some hon. Members have expressed concern about the potential increase in staff. I should deplore that, but the potential increase in work due to extra opening of the offices alarms me.
We see that Clause 2 provides that the fees will be fixed fees, irrespective of the

amount in the estate. Obviously, these will be small estates, and the fees will be pitched rather low. It seems to me likely that if the remote Customs offices, which are seldom open now, get a lot of work to do, they will have to be open more frequently. Therefore, there will be some extra cost on the Exchequer, and it rather surprises me that we have been given no Money Resolution to allow for this eventuality.
My second point is that various hon. Members have said that they regret that the limit is drawn so finely, and that they would have liked to have seen a higher limit. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), who introduced the Bill, said that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce had supported the Bill, and I know that it has, but I was under the impression that it had specifically asked him for a higher limit. I do not know whether my hon. Friend could give us any guidance on that point. I should also be grateful if we could be told why there has been no Money Resolution, and, also, what is the likelihood of the smaller Customs offices having to open more frequently.

11.48 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I do not intervene to keep the House from coming to a decision on the Bill in the near future, but I want, before a decision is taken or before my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) replies to the debate, if he wishes to do so, with the leave of the House, to congratulate him on having piloted thus far a very useful Measure.
Speaking for myself, I do not altogether assent to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) that a Bill of this sort, which does not raise any point of principle, necessarily suffers from not having been debated on Second Reading. I think that, in fact, the discussion we have had today, with the examination of the Bill in Committee, which has improved it, will satisfy the House that it is an extremely useful Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who is responsible for the Bill, asked me a question about unqualified advisers touting for work in applications before the Customs and Excise officers.


At present, the non-contentious probate rules lay down that a personal applicant for a grant may not apply through an agent, paid or unpaid, and may not be attended by a person acting or appearing to act as his adviser. It is our view that in all probability it does apply to the grants which the Bill envisages; but even if it should not do so the matter can be taken care of without amendment of the regulations by administrative instructions to the Customs and Excise officers, and that will be done.
All the other discussion which has gone on today has really turned not on what is in the Bill, but what is not in the Bill; and has suggested that the limits are too narrowly drawn. I would point out that the limit which corresponds to the £500 in 1898 is not £1,000, but the £3,000, because the £500 was gross estate. I should have thought myself that the limits are correctly drawn, although it is a matter of judgment, in the Bill, because one does not want the Customs and Excise officers to have to deal with difficult problems of law and administration.
If we have a gross estate of substantially more than £3,000 representing a net estate of only £1,000, the estate is likely to be heavily encumbered and to throw up some quite difficult legal problems, and those are better dealt with in the probate registries. Therefore, my own view is that the Bill does strike just the right balance.
Finally, if it is for me to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), why there is no Money Resolution, the answer is the one, I imagine, he expected—that it is not anticipated that the Bill will throw any increase on public funds.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having brought the Bill thus far. It has the commendation and good will of the Government.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Kershaw: I am very much obliged to my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the Bill. I would just say a word on the points which they have raised. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing out the correspondence between the amount prescribed in 1898 and the £3,000 mentioned in the Bill. That is because of the fall in the value of money, which has been borne in mind rather

more than some hon. Members thought, perhaps.
Nevertheless, some hon. Members have said that £3,000, even so, is rather a low figure at which to fix the upper limit. All I can say in reply to them is that the figure of £3,000 has been chosen with the advice of those whose task it is to administer the Bill when it becomes law, and, therefore, it is advice which it is very difficult to disregard. One may assume that they have anticipated the difficulties which are likely to arise rather more keenly, perhaps, than others. While I admit that £3,000 looks rather low, it has been chosen because of the advice received from the President of the Probate Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells) mentioned the question of what fees would be charged. I do not know whether he had in mind a fixed fee. It will be a sliding fee in future. He wondered whether that might provoke extra expense. To illustrate to him the way in which these things will probably work out, I would cite to him a case which has been sent to me by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. A Birmingham fireman's wife died intestate. The estate was just over £500, in a local building society. The fireman went to the building society who told him to call at the Customs and Excise office in Birmingham, which gave him the necessary forms and advised him how to fill them up and told him he should go either to Manchester or Lancaster, to the offices there. He filled up the forms and he went to Manchester and paid £3 15s. in fees and thus the matter was settled within 14 days. That is the way in which it is to be worked and I think that that illustrates the procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone also asked whether the Association of British Chambers of Commerce had asked for exactly this figure of £3,000 or any other. It received representations from some of its members and wrote to the Board of Inland Revenue on 9th May, 1960, and the Board said that
At the moment Customs officers are empowered to grant probate in cases of small estates up to £500, which is more convenient outside London. It is suggested that the limit might be substantially increased. Liability for Estate Duty only begins at £3,000. While it may root be possible to go all the way to this figure something much nearer to it would have great advantages.


Although it does not say whether the £3,000 is gross or net, it is clear it would be very satisfied with £3,000, which we have put in. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend that the Association will be very pleased.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I would like to make one observation about this, which will be a brief one, for I have not the slightest desire to prevent the Bill from being piloted through what have seemed such stormy waters as the Solicitor-General indicated in congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) upon his navigation.
As it is known to the House that I was once a member of the solicitors' profession, I am rather shocked by the sort of general attitude that solicitors will be rushing down here in their thousands saying that the Bill will rob them of one-tenth of their income, and that the question of the public interest will not arise in their minds at all.
So far as I know, it has always been the practice, as it certainly was in the early days, that in the case of any small estate without any trouble people could pop into the probate registry and one of the clerks there would help them fill up all the forms which are and always have been available, or enable a person to make personal application.
Even in the somewhat difficult financial times through which at least the provincial part of the profession passed, no one was desperately anxious to get small cases of this kind which involved quite a bit of trouble and a lot of explanations and only very small fees, and I would think that it would be a slander to say that solicitors have ever taken the view that the professional interest should dominate the public interest.
In point of fact, when a solictors' committee was formed by a Member of the other side of the House, some time ago, I wrote to point out that Oldham and I felt no passionate interest in its activities and that I did not, therefore, propose to join.
Notwithstanding that, I am sure that this Measure is perfectly harmless, although I do not think that it will be used as much as some hon. Members suppose. People in the provinces especially prefer proximity and friendliness,

and I do not think that, in practice, the Bill will make very much difference, but I have not the slightest objection to it. There has always been an overwhelming source of objection to the kinds of people who refuse to make a payment of small sums to all those legal administrators who are concerned with all the paraphernalia and formulae concerning the old bondsman and the long forms and certificates stating that there was no real probate and the net value, and so on. Therefore, if this Measure does contribute to greater ease, simplicity and facility, it may do a little good. I think that it cannot do any harm, and I therefore would not raise objection to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(BYELAWS AS TO VESSELS.)

Section five of the principal Act (which empowers a river board to make byelaws as respects any stream or part of a stream in their area as appears to them expedient) shall be read and have effect as if in place of paragraph (c) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph:—
(c) for requiring vessels kept or used on the stream to be provided with sanitary appliances from which polluting matter cannot be passed into the stream".—[Mr. Kimball.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause is specifically designed to strengthen the hand of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) to make his Bill, which he has successfully piloted thus far, much more effective. There is a very real flaw in Section 5 (1, c) of the main Act, the Act of 1951, which gives a river board power for
prohibiting or regulating the keeping or use on the stream of vessels provided with sanitary appliances from which polluting matter passes or can pass into the stream.
There is a very obvious defect there. There is nothing to say that the polluting


matter cannot be tipped straight out over the side of the vessel, which means that it is possible for such vessels to get round those provisions. If this new Clause is accepted, it will be possible for a river board to insist that all vessels using that river shall have the proper type of sanitary equipment, and equipment for dealing with their effluent.
I realise that many owners of small boats may consider this an unecessary imposition and expense, but I hope that by the time the Bill has been dealt with in another place it may have proved possible to work out a formula that limits the scope of the new Clause to, say, two-berth cabin cruisers, or boats on which people live, or spend the night.
This is a very large Measure for a private Member to introduce, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chester has shown great ability in meeting the interests concerned, and getting agreement with industry and with other people far beyond the normal range of what one could hope in such circumstances. I shall have more to say on that on Third Reading, because I cannot help feeling that the Government have not been altogether fair to my hon. Friend in making him do all this work. I am sure that we will be able to get a definition that will meet the interests of the owners of yachts and small boats.
In framing this new Clause, I have had very much in mind the damage that can be caused by boats discharging effluent into a river that the river board has over a period of fourteen months or so improved and made healthier. I think, in particular, of the area represented by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), where, because of the dense population and the housing difficulties in the North Midlands and other nearby areas, one finds a mass of houseboats more or less permanently moored to the banks of the River Trent above the locks. Every time the locks are opened, all the pollution from these boats, moored in practically static water, gets pushed into the river.
I know that effluent from boats cannot do a great deal of harm when dispersed over a considerable expanse of water, but there may be a most concentrated block of effluent of this type—built up, perhaps, over quite a period—suddenly pushed into a river which

people have stocked with fish, at some considerable expense, and in which they are accustomed to bathe.
We should be able to provide this public health safeguard without inflicting too great hardship on the owners of boats, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this new Clause which, I think, is constructive and will help the river boards in their administration of the rivers.

Mr. John Wells: Since Second Reading, when I, and, I think, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), both tended to support the idea contained in the new Clause, I have had very considerable second thoughts. My reasons are quite simple. Large numbers of boat owners would be put to vast and most unreasonable inconvenience if this new Clause were accepted.
I have the welfare of the Bill very much at heart—I want to see cleaner rivers—but the implications here are very far-reaching. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has just said that it might be possible to clamp down particularly on cabin cruisers and boats on which people live. That would mean that the entire boat-hiring industry on the Norfolk Broads and, in my own constituency, on the Medway, would be vitally affected, and its costs increased out of all proportion to the amount of effluent discharged.
By the Bill, and by the main Act, we seek to make real strides forward in preventing the discharge of industrial and substantial urban sewage effluent. My hon. Friend has mentioned the number of houseboats moored on the Trent as a result of housing difficulties in the North Midlands and elsewhere, but these small areas can perfectly well be dealt with by the byelaws of individual river boards. The Thames Conservancy has extremely strict regulations which are universally adhered to, and I think that the powers given to river boards by the existing Statute are perfectly satisfactory.
The cruiser-hire industry is growing because of the increasing popularity of the sport of boating in all its forms, and this new Clause would adversely affect boat design. Our boat designs are among the finest in the world—and I am glad to see with us this morning the hon.


Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), the Commodore of the House of Commons Yacht Club, who will, no doubt, have an interest in this matter.
Our boat designs are getting better every year, but if every cabin cruiser has to be fitted with a particularly cumbersome sanitary device, as opposed to the ordinary commercial types with which we are all familiar, many small industrial units will face great problems. Boat yards are small industrial units, and if such regulations are brought in it may well be that these people will break them, either in innocence or ignorance, and it would be most unfortunate if they were to be prosecuted. Again, I suggest that the very small amount of effluent discharged from a few boats into certain streams is really nothing compared with the vast amount of industrial and urban sewage.
There is another aspect of boat design. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited recent boat shows, but if he has he will know that at them one can see the excellent sanitary arrangements in boats designed in America, Scandinavia and other European countries. We are progressing in the same way, and I would deplore any retrograde step.
I emphasise that I do not wish my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Temple) to have his Bill weakened in any way, but as I believe that river boards have adequate powers under the existing Act, and as to my own certain knowledge river boards are even now seeking to make orders under that Act, I hope that after further consideration my hon. Friend will withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) referred to me, and to something I said, following him, on Second Reading. Although the general idea contained in the new Clause is good, and all of us who are interested in rivers and inland waterways can accept it, we must look carefully at the Clause. I will not seek to go into the details of definition of the vessels likely to be affected, but a very important point, flowing directly from what the hon. Member for Maidstone has just said, is that this provision would be quite useless unless on the rivers, on the Broads—and, indeed, on the canals

—sanitary points were provided where the Elsans could be emptied.
The Thames Conservancy has set a good example in this, and I hope that other authorities will follow it, because anglers, pleasure boaters and swimmers want clean rivers, to which they are entitled. There is still much truth in the gibe that rivers in some parts are becoming useless for some purposes. To adopt a North American phrase, they are too thick to drink and too thin to plough. Parliament has recognised this problem, and we are tackling it.
Rather than our having this new Clause added to the Bill, I hope that the Minister—it is a matter for him rather than for the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple)—will say that he will encourage river boards and other authorities to set up sanitary points so that if a boat builder or boat owner wants to install one of these pieces of equipment he will have places to empty it. If one is navigating on the Thames and goes from the Thames to a canal, one is then in a difficult position. If people move into waterways where sanitary points do not exist they meet a problem, and this is certainly becoming a problem on large distances of our inland waterways.
Although I appreciate what the problems are, I trust that the hon. Member will not press his proposed Clause. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of encouragement to river boards and other authorities to set up sanitary points so that if owners and builders want to instal such equipment they may do so.

Dr. Alan Glyn: It has already been made clear that if the proposed Clause were put into effect it might have an adverse effect on our boat building industry, which is now becoming an important export industry.
There is the further point of what will be the position in regard to sea-going craft, which are not normally equipped with such facilities, when they go up river. If the Clause were put into operation, it seems to me that they would either be prohibited from going up a river or might be causing an offence. This is a matter of considerable interest, and I should like an assurance on the point.
It may be true that the river-going craft make use of large rivers where there are already effective rules and regulations issued in respect of this type of offence, but there is a point to be considered as to whether, if the proposed Clause is incorporated in the Bill, this provision might override the powers of the river boards and make it an offence for a sea-going craft without sanitary provisions going up a river.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The House has been presented with a Bill of considerable detail, on which the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) must have spent a good deal of effort. We have to bear in mind that we have not very much time available, and we have to take some notice of the work that he has done and the provisions which he has submitted.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said two things in particular in moving the proposed Clause. He said that the main body of the public have to be protected by penal legislation from the errors of a very small minority. I get tired of this. All these measures mean more people being subjected to criminal prosecutions. We have proposals for a fine of £1,000 or a fine of £1,000 and three months' imprisonment. It seems to me that these are likely to be prosecutions against eminently respectable people for an act which may be an error of judgment, and in my view this is to be deplored.
Secondly, this is the second Bill which I have heard discussed today. I was a little late in arriving. On the first of those we were told that there had been no Second Reading and that we might have it now. On this Bill we are told that the matter has to be considered very fully and that it may be considered in another place. The hon. Member said that he hoped that by the time the Bill got to another place we should have had so many discussions on this proposal that we should have been able to sort it out and provide something more sensible. That may sometimes be to an extent forced on us perhaps for the convenience of the overworked Parliamentary machine in getting into gear, but it is not a very happy position for the House to face.
There is a good deal of the reactionary in me, and I have great sympathy with the point of view of the farmer who returned from a brief holiday on the south coast, went down to the end of the field, leaned over the edge of the pig-sty, took a deep breath and said, "Pig muck-fine!" I have tried these things on motor boats. I have had the privilege of being in both kinds of motor boat. I think that the stink of a chemical closet is about the most objectionable smell I have had to encounter and live with. However, I am prepared to subordinate my interests in this matter to those of the fishermen who want their waters reasonably unpolluted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), however, made a case on this, that before we drag people to the petty sessions the river boards themselves might take a few steps to help. Also, where we introduce legislation of a penal nature, it might be wise to start off with some useful and sensible point like the construction of new boats.
This provision is seeking to put a heavy burden on some decent people who usually behave and who have invested their money in this form of sport. This is a very pleasant form of sport. It is one which a man and his wife and a couple of kids can enjoy. It is a sport which can keep a family together. Yet we are saying in five minutes on a private Members' day in the House of Commons, "You must have this reconstructed. You have to dig out the existing arrangements and substitute a new fitting on the boat, or else you will be liable to a fine and imprisonment." I consider that that is imposing an unreasonable and heavy burden.
I do not profess to have any special knowledge of this matter, and I speak subject to correction and with due humility. When I was more interested, there were only one or two firms engaged in this. Any intelligent hon. Member who listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Gainsborough ought to dash out and buy a few shares in such firms because we are conferring a substantial benefit on them if we pass the Clause.
I should have thought that in these days this was one of our very real and growing industries which has probably made more progress than any other sporting industry of a comparable nature


in the last few years. There is an organisation and there is the annual boat show. One can talk to manufacturers on the question of pollution and say "In considering design, let us all get together in the future and ensure that we are producing boats which conform to the needs of public health and to the general requirements of a Measure of this kind." Is it really necessary to bring out the police, the beaks, the river police and so on because a bloke with a boat cannot afford to buy a new one? He is getting pleasure out of it, and is not making very much difference to the state of the streams. The three or four hours' journey per week, which such a boat usually makes, will not add very greatly to the pollution problem. Nor is the pollution problem likely to be greatly diminished by a Clause of this kind.
The only thing I can suggest to the hon. Member is that he applies his own words to the Clause and says that as it has to go to another place, and, if in another place an Amendment has to be made to bring the Clause into line with the requirements, it has to come back here anyhow, so we shall have to discuss the matter again, it might be sensible not to bung it in now.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I support the new Clause, but since listening to the debate I have realised that there are reasons why it should be given a great deal of thought and why it might be necessary to leave the matter until the Bill reaches another place.
I have listened with great care to the opponents of the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) said that it would be likely to cause inconvenience because people have no knowledge of the law, but that hardly weighs with me. I have very little experience of river travel, but I have been on motor boats on rivers and found that there are various notices on them.

Mr. J. Wells: There are notices on the boats on the Thames, but I am not aware of notices on boats on rivers in other parts of the country.

Mr. Gurden: I accept that, but I am about to suggest that there should be notices in all the boats. I see no reason

boats when they are manufactured or repaired, so that people using the boats would know what was required of them, why notices should not be put in the
Of all the reasons why we should have the Clause, few are as important as that which I am about to give. A few years ago, a friend of mine in his thirties was bathing in a river at a place which was sidered to be reasonably safe for bathing, but he contracted typhoid. It obviously came from bathing in the river, for no other source of contamination could be found. The illness upset his life and his career. It was a very serious illness. I do not think it is the intention of those who have spoken against the Clause that such a case should not be regarded as more important than the objections to the Clause.
It is the type rather than the volume of pollution which we ought to consider. I accept what hon. Members have said about the likely amount of pollution if we do not have the Clause, but it is the type and seriousness of the pollution which matters. However careful we may be, there are cases when children can contract very serious diseases, and do so.
It is impossible for me, or for anyone, to say how much disease and trouble is caused by this type of pollution, but it is certain that there are many cases. At the moment, that is the only one I can quote. I have not made investigations of hospital and doctors' records, and I doubt whether they would be available to me, but I know of that one case. After the recovery of my friend, which took a very long time, he told me that doctors had advised him not to bathe in such waters, although many thousands of people did so. He told me that the doctors had said that there were many similar cases in most of our rivers all through the summer months. If we can reduce that risk by a Clause of this sort, there is every justification for inserting it into the Bill.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kim-ball) on this Clause. I think that he was too modest when he said that it might require alteration. It seems perfectly adequate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has done such tremendous


work in bringing the Bill through to this stage, will tell us if anything is required in the drafting; but, on the face of it, this is a good Clause.
Hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends who have argued against the Clause have nevertheless supported the reasons behind it. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) said that it was not necessary because river boards could have the powers to deal with the problem if they so wished. That is true, but the point is that they do not, other than the Thames River Board and one or two others. The Thames River Board has taken the powers because it was so obviously necessary that it should. There has obviously been pollution from river craft, which is why the Thames River Board has taken powers to put sanitary points all along the river. That would be the answer on other rivers, but I have no reason to believe that other river boards will take that action.
Much as I like to think that the arguments we put forward will carry tremendous weight with river boards, we have no means of knowing that they will. If the Clause is inserted, perhaps with a slight alteration, it will have the exact effect which my hon. Friend desires and will deal with the problem.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made the point that this would cause inconvenience and said that the amount of effluent was small. With all due respect to the hon. Member, to whose forensic arguments I always listen with great interest, he is arguing the wrong way round. The very fact that there is this effluent going into the rivers and that it can be dangerous and is unpleasant, no matter how small the quantity, does not preclude the idea that my hon. Friend is right to put forward a Clause to prevent this pollution.
The hon. Member spoke of the farmer who went back to the pig sty and breathed the air of the pig manure and was happy and glad about it, but if the farmer were coming back from a day's harvesting and if he plunged into the stream to cool himself down and took a mouthful—! I am sure that if the hon. Member did it himself he would not like it very much. That is not the entire point. Typhoid and other illnesses

have resulted from these discharges. It is even more necessary that provision should be made to stop this kind of discharge.

Mr. Hale: I do not like plunging into cooling streams. One has to balance off the value and service of the operation against the disadvantages. There were very few Elsan closets at Dunkirk. My boat was there, although not with me, fortunately.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As the hon. Gentleman says, one has to balance these things. Are we to balance human life against upsetting a few people, which is what we might be doing? When I was at school we used to bathe in the Thames. The cause of it could not definitely be traced because this was a long time ago, but there was an outbreak of polio and somebody died. I am not a doctor, and I cannot prove that bathing in a river is sometimes responsible for these diseases, but if it is possible that that is the cause, surely it is right and proper that we should stop this pollution. We cannot, at the risk of inconveniencing a few, risk the lives of many.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) made the point about sea-going craft being inconvenienced by going upstream. The Bill does not deal with tidal waters. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester will confirm that sea-going craft will not be affected by the provisions of the Bill if they are in tidal waters. If, however, they went further upstream, they would be smaller vessels, and in all probability would be the type of craft which spent the majority of their time on rivers. My hon. Friend can dismiss the possibility of inconvenience being caused to the Cunarders or ocean-going craft which go to Australia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made a point about design. Surely we are getting things out of proportion. The hon. Member for Oldham, West also elaborated this point by saying that this would cause an enormous amount of extra expense, and that it was wrong to do that. He said that people who used these boats are those who are hard up—I am sure that many of them are—and suddenly to put on them the


duty of having to change their existing arrangements would be intolerable. The argument that I used a few moments ago applies here also. If what they do causes danger to the public, then the fact that these people must change a certain part of their boats is no argument for saying that it must not be done. We are getting things out of proportion, because it is my recollection that it is cheaper to install these Elsan closets than the push and pull and flush type of lavatory. If my recollection is correct about that, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone falls to the ground, because it would be cheaper and better to install these Elsans in the first place. I do not think that the cost to those who have the wrong type of closet would be very great if a change were made, certainly not in proportion to the saving of life. It would be well worth while to make the change to avoid the nuisance which is caused by the present system.
I hope that my hon. Friends, and indeed hon. Gentlemen opposite, will realise that this is not something which we can lightly dismiss. I hope that when the time comes my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester will find it possible to add this Amendment to his extremely good and worthy Bill.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I join issue with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Why should we as a country put up with this misery of filth, noise and nuisance because of a few thoughtless people? I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimble) will not withdraw the new Clause.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). The only thing wrong with his constituency as a pleasure resort is that it is sometimes made untenable by a few people who do some of the things which the Bill is trying to stop.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not be daunted by the arguments of certain hon. Members who say that we must not do this because it will upset a few people. So often nowadays a few people make the lives of others miserable. I do not think it would matter if on this occasion we made the lives of those few people a bit miserable.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am sure the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimble) for tabling his new Clause and allowing hon. Members to ventilate their opinions on this matter of growing importance. The fact that our rivers, streams, and canals are more and more being used by people for pleasure and residential purposes in crafts of various descriptions makes it important that we should consider this matter carefully.
I assure my hon. Friend that I do not think that there is a flaw in the principal Act in this respect, but I am glad that he is seeking to strengthen my hand in this matter. I shall go into this in some considerable detail, because I think that it merits a full examination of the present position. Before I do so, I should like to reply to the various points made in this interesting debate.
The Thames Conservancy Board has special byelaws for dealing with this problem, which I understand are extremely effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough drew attention to the possibility that a number of craft would throw over the side a certain amount of polluting material which would be deleterious to the interests of the river. In those circumstances, the persons who were perpetrating this nuisance would be committing an offence, because Section 2 (1) of the principal Act says:
Subject to this Act, a person commits an offence punishable under this section:

(a) if he causes or knowingly permits to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter.…"

That puts the situation envisaged by my hon. Friend beyond doubt in that it is covered by the principal Act.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend saying that any person who discharges polluting material into any river breaks the law?

Mr. Temple: Yes, that is the position, but I shall explain further aspects of this situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) raised a point about sea-going vessels. The controlling Section in the principal Act is Section 5 (1, c), and if my hon. Friend


looks at Section 11 (1) he will see that a stream is deemed to include
any river, stream, watercourse or inland water…except that it does not include either:

(a) any lake or pond which does not discharge to a stream; or
(b) any sewer vested in a local authority."

The Section goes on to refer to the bed of a stream which is dry, but it makes it clear that the word "stream" applies only to inland water, and therefore the correct controlling authority in tidal waters would be the dock, harbour, or port authority concerned. Those are the authorities which are normally responsible for dealing with pollution from ocean-going vessels when they enter a port.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Presumably this covers them only in tidal waters. They would be committing an offence if they discharged pollution beyond the tidal waters?

Mr. Temple: That is so, because I have read the definition of a stream which differentiates between tidal waters and a stream.
I was glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, (Mr. J. Wells), who speaks with great authority on these matters, and I know that he is in close touch with the River Boards Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) mentioned the danger of contracting diseases through either bathing in, or drinking from, polluted waters. That is a case for supporting the whole Bill, and not just the new Clause. The Bill is designed to bring about a cleaner state of our rivers and canals, and all those waters dealt with in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who has unfortunately left us, made one or two important points with which I shall deal shortly. I am glad to affirm, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that the Bill has had a fairly thorough examination at all stages. I am also glad to inform him that river boards have powers—which they have not so far used—to make byelaws to deal with this situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that there could be a drafting error in the Clause. It was not my intention to say so, but since my

hon. Friend has mentioned the possibility I can confirm that there is such an error in it, in that it should refer to Section 5 (1) of the principal Act, instead of merely to Section 5. But I do not seek to resist it merely because it has that drafting error in it.
I now turn to the principal arguments for and against the Clause. There is no evidence that Section 5 (1, c) of the principal Act is inadequate. I have held a number of conferences and consultations with the River Boards Association and that Association has never indicated that it thought that the byelaw-making powers were inadequate. One hon. Member drew attention to the fact that two river boards had made application to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for byelaw-making powers; in fact, I understand that only one has made such an application, but that another is contemplating doing so. None of the river boards regards the byelaw-making powers as inadequate. I shall seek to show that the provision in the 1951 Act, although it has never been operated, will be effective if it is operated.
The hon. Member for Lincoln pointed out that the word "vessel" would need some definition, and he is right. Unless that word is defined we shall get into difficulties, because it would mean that all skiffs, punts or collapsible boats of the kind one sees being taken round the countryside on the roof racks of motor cars would require special appliances. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to go as far as that. I imagine that he seeks to require all vessels which will traverse streams to carry a type of Elsan closet, from which there is no means of pulling a plug and letting the effluent go into the stream.
We are here dealing with pleasure craft, in which a certain amount of washing-up water or dishwater is necessarily used. Glasses have to be washed after people have been enjoying a nice picnic, for instance. That water is not of a very noxious or polluting nature, and if the Clause were accepted as it is it would be impossible for a pleasure boat owner to get rid of his dishwater in the way to which he has been accustomed. For those reasons pleasure boats would be inhibited.
I drew attention to Section 5 (1, c) of the principal Act because that is the Section which gives the river boards byelaw-making powers. It provides that a river board may make byelaws:
for prohibiting or regulating the keeping or use on the stream of vessels provided with sanitary appliances from which polluting matter passes or can pass into the stream.
The important word is "regulating". The hon. Member for Lincoln pointed out that the Thames Conservancy Board has sanitary points situated at various places along the banks of the Thames, and I understand that they are extremely effective and valuable. The word "regulating" is designed to give river boards the power, if they wish to do so, to act in the same way as the Thames Conservancy Board acts in this connection.
12.45 p.m.
One hon. Member said that river bords might be encouraged to use these byelaw-making powers. As a result of this debate the news will probably go out that Members are concerned about river boards making application for byelaw-making powers, and to that extent the debate has been valuable.
The existing subsection of the 1951 Act gives boards the power to prohibit the use of vessels which do not have a satisfactory sanitary appliance. For all the reasons that I have given I believe that that subsection is effective enough. If it is used, I can see no reason for compelling any vessel to carry sanitary appliances, and if my hon. Friend thinks about this I hope that he will agree with me. Certain yachting interests have written to me expressing grave concern over the new Clause, and those interests are very responsible ones. I have had no representations from the River Boards Association in the matter, and I hope that, having heard my explanation, and my assurance that the present powers are adequate in the view of the Association, my hon. Friend will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Kimball: I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that in approaching the new Clause I did so with the same logic as that with which Jorrocks approached the problem of fox hunting. He said:

It ar'n't that I loves the fox less, but that I loves the ound more.
It is not that I am against pleasure craft and boating, but that I am more concerned for the fishermen and public health. Nevertheless, in view of what my hon. Friend has said about the powers which river boards already have, and the fact that they are satisfied with them as laid down in Section 5 of the principal Act—and with the reservation that I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that washing up in Daz and some of the other new soap powders can be as damaging as any other kind of effluent from boats—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(RIVER BOARD'S CONSENT FOR PRE-1951 DISCHARGES.)

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "temperature or".
This matter had a fairly full discussion in Committee, and I then gave an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) that I would consider it once again. In Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) suggested the form of Amendment which I have tabled and which I hope the House will be able to accept. It was also an Amendment which I discussed with the executive of the River Boards Association at a conference I had with it prior to the Committee stage. At that time, the Association anticipated that this Amendment would be moved in Committee, but in fact a rather different one was moved, to which I could not accede.
Hon. Members should realise that the application with which we are here concerned is the initial one which a discharger will make to the river board. For that reason my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford pointed out that there was a need for a certain degree of precision. If we accept the Amendment it will make the words of the subsection rather more precise, in that the words "temperature or" will be eliminated, and the information will be required at the maximum temperature.
It is very simple for any of these dischargers to ascertain the maximum temperature of his discharge. In Committee, I was inclined to think that a degree of indecision in this matter was


not against the Bill, but I recognise the force of the arguments put forward by the River Boards Association, and, therefore, I very much hope that the House will accept my Amendment.

Mr. J. Wells: The River Boards Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has just said, supports this Amendment most strongly and welcomes it. The Association feels that it will give extra strength to the Bill. I only wish to say at this stage how sorry I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is not with us this morning. He is, of course, attending to his many duties concerned with river inspection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after "Act," to insert:
nor exempted under subsection (2) of this section.
This Clause deals with the question of the service of a notice by the river boards. Subsection (2) deals
with 'water' raised or drained from…a mine…".
As there is no requirement from the river board for a consent to discharge this type of
water raised or drained from…a mine…
it did not seem logical or correct that a river board in this instance should have the power of serving notice. This is a drafting Amendment and it has been put down for the avoidance of doubt. I believe it to be logical, and I trust that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kimball: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "fine," to insert:
not exceeding one thousand pounds.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if together with this Amendment we discussed the next Amendment standing in my name, in line 40, to leave out "one" and to insert "two"?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that that would be convenient.

Mr. Kimball: This Amendment deals with the problem that on conviction on indictment there is no limit to the amount of the fine which can be imposed in such cases. I think that many hon. Members—this is a point often

raised in the House—feel that it is very unsatisfactory and, indeed, very unfair on the general public that there should be no limit on the amount of fine that a judge can impose.
It may well be that the very first prosecution under the Bill when it becomes an Act would concern a large commercial concern that has the misfortune to make a discharge into a river and is eventually fined for doing so. For instance, to fine Imperial Chemical Industries, or some such colossal giant concern, a mere £500 is nothing. The court may feel that it has to make an example of such a firm as a deterrent to others doing the same thing. It may impose a thumping great fine. Under the Bill there is no limit to the fine.
It may well happen that the next offence is committed by a very much smaller concern or even by a private individual. It may concern the discharge from a farmer's silage pit. The court may feel that as there was already on record a very large fine imposed for this offence on a large concern it must inflict a heavy fine in every case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) will see the logic of this argument. Although I do not in any way want to condone what is an offence, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to accept this limit in the case of any fine.
Similarly, I do not think that, the value of money today being what it is, the limit of the fine proposed in subsection (7, b) is a correct one. In view of the fall in the value of money today a fine of £100 for such a serious offence seems to be an extremely small one, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider raising the figure to £200. We have only to think of the very extensive damage that can be done by someone making a mistake like this. There may well be the case where a river has been maintained in a pure state at vast expense over many years and stocked with fish at very considerable expense by angling clubs. If an offence of this sort were committed in such a river I do not think that a fine of £100 would be a sufficient deterrent.

Mr. J. Wells: While I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that a definite fine should be fixed for a major offence—and, indeed, his suggestion of £1,000


for a major offence may well be reasonable—I cannot agree with him in his second proposition that the proposed fine of £100 should be raised to £200. I have said at every stage of the Bill that there will undoubtedly be small offences committed which will, we hope, through the generosity of the river boards, go unnoticed. But in some areas there may well be river boards less generous than those in other areas, and it would be most unfortunate if this precedent in the amount of the fine which my hon. Friend envisages should be set up.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a farmer's silage pit. I raised this point myself at earlier stages of the Bill. I have been told that a silage pit is usually moved about and, therefore, that it does not usually come within the ambit of the Bill. At the same time, there are many farmers—we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) is a distinguished farmer himself—who put their silage pits in much the same place year after year. Therefore, there will be discharges from much the same place into the same small stream. That might well be an offence. I should very much deplore a farmer of that sort being fined anything like £100, let alone £200. Although I strongly support my hon. Friend in saying that a definite figure should be inserted in subsection (7, a) I hope that he will have second thoughts about subsection (7, b) and will not press that Amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I wish to support my hon. Friend's Amendment because I think that it is fundamentally wrong for Parliament to create an offence without at the same time placing a ceiling on the fine which can be imposed. As a matter of principle, I strongly support my hon. Friend's view with regard to paragraph (b). I do not, however, altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells). After all, the subsection is pretty clear. It says "a fine not exceeding," and it is open to the courts to adjust their fines according to the offence. In the instances which he gave the court may well think that a much smaller fine is appropriate. Therefore,

I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I must apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present to hear the cogent argument which he put forward. I was unavoidably absent for a moment or two. I wish to support my hon. Friend on the first part, but I am not all that happy about the figure of £1,000 which he mentions. I think that the fixing of a limit by the House is a correct principle. I do not like the matter being open-ended with no control over how far the court can go in the matter of a fine. I am slightly apprehensive, however, about the figure of £1,000. It might put into the mind of the court that this is the sort of fine which is needed. I am sure that that will not happen.
1.0 p.m.
But I support the principle underlying my hon. Friends Amendment. I think that there ought to be an upper limit. I should prefer £500 rather than £1,000, but that is a matter of detail. I do not agree with him about paragraph (b). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells). I think that £100 is a suitable figure rather than £200, and I do not follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). Of course, this must be left to the discretion of the court, and I see no justification for doubling the figure. Subject to what I have said, I agree with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: There is some conflict between the first Amendment and the second. I am anxious to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) wishes to increase or to diminish the effect of the subsection. The first Amendment, by placing a limit on the fine, would diminish its effect, but the second would enhance it to the tune of 100 per cent. The views that he has—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, adjourned at six minutes past One o'clock till Monday next.